Tell Me :
Talk
lol..true! Good one!
So am I. I'm British, after all. I dont see why its such a big obsession to get the Stones to be the 'cabaret', though. If anything, it appears you've more of a fixation with McCartney, for some reason.
If the Stones arent 'tour ready' by July 2012, I sure as hell dont want to see them embarrass themmselves with a trainwreck of a performance after a 5 year gap in front of billions of people. And the Stones dont play ANY concerts unless theyre touring.
I never had them down as being serious candidates for this event anyway.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-28 23:50 by Gazza.
What 'Empire' ? The Queen has a say in the line up for the Olympics?
.
Paul just likes to play!
He'd play to his dog.
The man just likes making music.
There's nothing complicated about him.
The lady owns all that land, what would you call it?
Without wishing to drag this much further off topic and be pedantic, we dont have an 'Empire' anymore...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-29 00:38 by Gazza.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-29 00:53 by Max'sKansasCity.
Thats the thing. I just wish the Stones would simply play - even short tours or the occasional gig - to keep them ticking over as a working band.
Unfortunately, its either a feast or a famine. A couple of years of activity followed by nothing at all for almost half a decade. Theres no motivation to do anything unless its on a grand scale , taking about a year of planning and 5-6 weeks of rehearsal.
Its not something that really should take up much of their time if the inclination is there.
He paid her off a few years ago. Macca's got money out the wazoo, and his fiancee has her own money.
If you could actually get past the personality problems with the two 'leaders' of the band, the other issue is that the pattern you've described is really the only way they know how to do it, after 30 years.
We're also part of the problem, insofar as there are so many hard core, and soft core fans that would want tickets, the high demand would justify to them, the big shows/big tour. As 'best case' for a new tour, is now 5 years from the last, demand would be pent up, and a fifty year legacy would be quite a draw; I think anyway.
At this point, I've given up on anything other than the mammoth tours...but I don't think there is even room for that now, going back to the personalities issue.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Stones turn down Olympics Opening gig
Posted by:
Who's Driving Your Plane?
()
Date: July 28, 2011 18:13
What? With all the Doping going on in the Olympics the Stones would fit right in with all that jaded, faded, junky nurse, oh what pleasant company they would be!
Re: Stones turn down Olympics Opening gig
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: July 28, 2011 18:21
Quote
Who's Driving Your Plane?
What? With all the Doping going on in the Olympics the Stones would fit right in with all that jaded, faded, junky nurse, oh what pleasant company they would be!
lol..true! Good one!
Re: Stones turn down Olympics Opening gig
Posted by:
mountainhigh
()
Date: July 28, 2011 18:38
Funny that,I did have a little Smirk on my face but now
I am sorry you only see the Olympics for how you see it but I am pleased for London that they are going to host a wonderful event. I really only started a comment on this subject to voice my opinion on who I thought I would prefer to perform at the opening event and that is, anyone really other than Macca. I love the Stones and only continued writing about them in defence for the horrible comments against a band that has been around for a long time and whom have been a pleasure to follow for many years. The world would be a dull place indeed if we all thought the same I suppose but for those whose opinions lapse into pure ignorance, shame on you. Past negative comments on the Stones and Amy Winehouse (Before and after her death) are uncalled for.I enjoyed Macca in his Beatle's years but moved on from there.My comments about 'behaviour' was purely to acknowledge Ronnie & co being unreliable at times, nothing more! When they do a show together they are fantastic.
I am sorry you only see the Olympics for how you see it but I am pleased for London that they are going to host a wonderful event. I really only started a comment on this subject to voice my opinion on who I thought I would prefer to perform at the opening event and that is, anyone really other than Macca. I love the Stones and only continued writing about them in defence for the horrible comments against a band that has been around for a long time and whom have been a pleasure to follow for many years. The world would be a dull place indeed if we all thought the same I suppose but for those whose opinions lapse into pure ignorance, shame on you. Past negative comments on the Stones and Amy Winehouse (Before and after her death) are uncalled for.I enjoyed Macca in his Beatle's years but moved on from there.My comments about 'behaviour' was purely to acknowledge Ronnie & co being unreliable at times, nothing more! When they do a show together they are fantastic.
Re: Stones turn down Olympics Opening gig
Posted by:
sweetcharmedlife
()
Date: July 28, 2011 18:52
No shock. Pretty much what was speculated on all along.
Re: Stones turn down Olympics Opening gig
Posted by:
Title5Take1
()
Date: July 28, 2011 18:56
I'm still annoyed they turned down the offer to compose and perform the theme song for first Pierce Brosnan James Bond film GoldenEye. I think they could have come up with a cool rocker with that title.
Re: Stones turn down Olympics Opening gig
Posted by:
phd
()
Date: July 28, 2011 19:20
I do not think Keith represent the type of Olympic Hero which the Queen would love to show to the world. Sir Paul has all the qualities to represent The British Empire. But isn't the title of this thread right. I mean I question that The Stones were asked this. The Beatles are Bristish most powerful musical legacy.
Re: Stones turn down Olympics Opening gig
Posted by:
northernale1
()
Date: July 28, 2011 19:20
maybe they are doing the close
Re: Stones turn down Olympics Opening gig
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: July 28, 2011 21:05
Having McCartney there is ok thing, I think. He represents the biggest cultural symbol England had during the 20th Century. The aura of the Beatles suits very well to the Olympics in London.
- Doxa
- Doxa
Re: Stones turn down Olympics Opening gig
Posted by:
JJHMick
()
Date: July 28, 2011 21:40
Quote
phd
I do not think Keith represent the type of Olympic Hero which the Queen would love to show to the world. Sir Paul has all the qualities to represent The British Empire.Quote
But he sponsored Daley Thompson who won Gold! While Mick supported the British basketball team which might only have won against Pitcairn or the like.
Re: Stones turn down Olympics Opening gig
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: July 28, 2011 23:48
Quote
mountainhigh
Funny that,I did have a little Smirk on my face but now
I am sorry you only see the Olympics for how you see it but I am pleased for London that they are going to host a wonderful event.
So am I. I'm British, after all. I dont see why its such a big obsession to get the Stones to be the 'cabaret', though. If anything, it appears you've more of a fixation with McCartney, for some reason.
If the Stones arent 'tour ready' by July 2012, I sure as hell dont want to see them embarrass themmselves with a trainwreck of a performance after a 5 year gap in front of billions of people. And the Stones dont play ANY concerts unless theyre touring.
I never had them down as being serious candidates for this event anyway.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-28 23:50 by Gazza.
Re: Stones turn down Olympics Opening gig
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: July 28, 2011 23:49
Quote
phd
I do not think Keith represent the type of Olympic Hero which the Queen would love to show to the world. Sir Paul has all the qualities to represent The British Empire. But isn't the title of this thread right. I mean I question that The Stones were asked this. The Beatles are Bristish most powerful musical legacy.
What 'Empire' ? The Queen has a say in the line up for the Olympics?
.Re: Stones turn down Olympics Opening gig
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: July 28, 2011 23:53
Macca is happy to do whateverQuote
thecitadel
according to today's Daily Telegraph, McCartney will open the Olympics in London in 2012. No Ringo (on tour in USA), no Zeppelin (Plant not interested)... and no Stones (no reason).
not playing next year, or also on tour?
[www.telegraph.co.uk]
Re: Stones turn down Olympics Opening gig
Posted by:
GravityBoy
()
Date: July 28, 2011 23:55
Quote
mtaylor
Macca is happy to do whatever
Paul just likes to play!
He'd play to his dog.
The man just likes making music.
There's nothing complicated about him.
Re: Stones turn down Olympics Opening gig
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: July 28, 2011 23:56
What 'Empire' ?
Well according to this website
[www.whoownstheworld.com]
The Queen owns more land on Earth than any other person...
""Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories, is the legal owner of about 6,600 million acres of land, one sixth of the earth’s non ocean surface.
She is the only person on earth who owns whole countries, and who owns countries that are not her own domestic territory. This land ownership is separate from her role as head of state and is different from other monarchies where no such claim is made – Norway, Belgium, Denmark etc.
The value of her land holding. £17,600,000,000,000 (approx).
This makes her the richest individual on earth. However, there is no way easily to value her real estate. There is no current market in the land of entire countries. At a rough estimate of $5,000 an acre, and based on the sale of Alaska to the USA by the Tsar, and of Louisiana to the USA by France, the Queen’s land holding is worth a notional $33,000,000,000,000 (Thirty three trillion dollars or about £17,600,000,000,000). Her holding is based on the laws of the countries she owns and her land title is valid in all the countries she owns. Her main holdings are Canada, the 2nd largest country on earth, with 2,467 million acres, Australia, the 7th largest country on earth with 1,900 million acres, the Papua New Guinea with114 million acres, New Zealand with 66 million acres and the UK with 60 million acres.
She is the world’s largest landowner by a significant margin. The next largest landowner is the Russian state, with an overall ownership of 4,219 million acres, and a direct ownership comparable with the Queen’s land holding of 2,447 million acres. The 3rd largest landowner is the Chinese state, which claims all of Chinese land, about 2,365 million acres. The 4th largest landowner on earth is the Federal Government of the United States, which owns about one third of the land of the USA, 760 million acres. The fifth largest landowner on earth is the King of Saudi Arabia with 553 million acres""
Well according to this website
[www.whoownstheworld.com]
The Queen owns more land on Earth than any other person...
""Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories, is the legal owner of about 6,600 million acres of land, one sixth of the earth’s non ocean surface.
She is the only person on earth who owns whole countries, and who owns countries that are not her own domestic territory. This land ownership is separate from her role as head of state and is different from other monarchies where no such claim is made – Norway, Belgium, Denmark etc.
The value of her land holding. £17,600,000,000,000 (approx).
This makes her the richest individual on earth. However, there is no way easily to value her real estate. There is no current market in the land of entire countries. At a rough estimate of $5,000 an acre, and based on the sale of Alaska to the USA by the Tsar, and of Louisiana to the USA by France, the Queen’s land holding is worth a notional $33,000,000,000,000 (Thirty three trillion dollars or about £17,600,000,000,000). Her holding is based on the laws of the countries she owns and her land title is valid in all the countries she owns. Her main holdings are Canada, the 2nd largest country on earth, with 2,467 million acres, Australia, the 7th largest country on earth with 1,900 million acres, the Papua New Guinea with114 million acres, New Zealand with 66 million acres and the UK with 60 million acres.
She is the world’s largest landowner by a significant margin. The next largest landowner is the Russian state, with an overall ownership of 4,219 million acres, and a direct ownership comparable with the Queen’s land holding of 2,447 million acres. The 3rd largest landowner is the Chinese state, which claims all of Chinese land, about 2,365 million acres. The 4th largest landowner on earth is the Federal Government of the United States, which owns about one third of the land of the USA, 760 million acres. The fifth largest landowner on earth is the King of Saudi Arabia with 553 million acres""
Re: Stones turn down Olympics Opening gig
Posted by:
sweetcharmedlife
()
Date: July 28, 2011 23:56
I'm glad somebody is. beats writing a snarky book about your lead singer.Quote
mtaylorMacca is happy to do whateverQuote
thecitadel
according to today's Daily Telegraph, McCartney will open the Olympics in London in 2012. No Ringo (on tour in USA), no Zeppelin (Plant not interested)... and no Stones (no reason).
not playing next year, or also on tour?
[www.telegraph.co.uk]
Re: Stones turn down Olympics Opening gig
Posted by:
Bingo
()
Date: July 29, 2011 00:00
Lets face it, after The Stones last tour, they would be suited more towards the Special Olympics. McCartney is an excellent choice. His live performances are phenomenal. His live shows blow away most, even shows by the younger generation don't give that much energy.
Re: Stones turn down Olympics Opening gig
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: July 29, 2011 00:08
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
What 'Empire' ?
Well according to this website
[www.whoownstheworld.com]
The Queen owns more land on Earth than any other person...
/quote]
What's that got to do with an 'Empire' ? This is 2012, not 1812.
Re: Stones turn down Olympics Opening gig
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: July 29, 2011 00:16
Quote
GazzaQuote
Max'sKansasCity
What 'Empire' ?
Well according to this website
[www.whoownstheworld.com]
The Queen owns more land on Earth than any other person...
What's that got to do with an 'Empire' ? This is 2012, not 1812.
The lady owns all that land, what would you call it?
Re: Stones turn down Olympics Opening gig
Posted by:
gripweed
()
Date: July 29, 2011 00:22
McCartney is the right choice... his shows have PLENTY of Energy still... he is currently playing dates in the US & his band is as HOT as ever... best band Macca has had since the four lads from Liverpool IMHO...
Re: Stones turn down Olympics Opening gig
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: July 29, 2011 00:37
Quote
Max'sKansasCityQuote
GazzaQuote
Max'sKansasCity
What 'Empire' ?
Well according to this website
[www.whoownstheworld.com]
The Queen owns more land on Earth than any other person...
What's that got to do with an 'Empire' ? This is 2012, not 1812.
The lady owns all that land, what would you call it?
Without wishing to drag this much further off topic and be pedantic, we dont have an 'Empire' anymore...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-29 00:38 by Gazza.
Re: Stones turn down Olympics Opening gig
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: July 29, 2011 00:42
so much for me saving up to buy Canada from the Queen.
Re: Stones turn down Olympics Opening gig
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: July 29, 2011 00:46
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-29 00:53 by Max'sKansasCity.
Re: Stones turn down Olympics Opening gig
Posted by:
paulm
()
Date: July 29, 2011 00:59
Given the choice to see the Stones or Macca today, I would choose Macca. Kick @ss band as well. Now given the choice to see Stones with MT on guitar and RW on bass, or Macca, tough call...that sucks that Zep, Stones, etc. etc. aren't all playing in the opening. Heck, in Vancouver you had Neil, KD Lang, Rush, Celine I think and others representing.
Re: Stones turn down Olympics Opening gig
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: July 29, 2011 01:08
Quote
GravityBoyQuote
mtaylor
Macca is happy to do whatever
Paul just likes to play!
He'd play to his dog.
The man just likes making music.
There's nothing complicated about him.
Thats the thing. I just wish the Stones would simply play - even short tours or the occasional gig - to keep them ticking over as a working band.
Unfortunately, its either a feast or a famine. A couple of years of activity followed by nothing at all for almost half a decade. Theres no motivation to do anything unless its on a grand scale , taking about a year of planning and 5-6 weeks of rehearsal.
Its not something that really should take up much of their time if the inclination is there.
Re: Stones turn down Olympics Opening gig
Posted by:
ab
()
Date: July 29, 2011 02:20
Quote
mountainhigh
Well I suppose he is still paying off Heather Mills, enough said!!!
He paid her off a few years ago. Macca's got money out the wazoo, and his fiancee has her own money.
Re: Stones turn down Olympics Opening gig
Posted by:
tomcat2006
()
Date: July 29, 2011 09:55
I saw Macca last year for the first time and he was outstanding. A good choice.
Re: Stones turn down Olympics Opening gig
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: July 29, 2011 11:36
Quote
GazzaQuote
GravityBoyQuote
mtaylor
Macca is happy to do whatever
Paul just likes to play!
He'd play to his dog.
The man just likes making music.
There's nothing complicated about him.
Thats the thing. I just wish the Stones would simply play - even short tours or the occasional gig - to keep them ticking over as a working band.
Unfortunately, its either a feast or a famine. A couple of years of activity followed by nothing at all for almost half a decade. Theres no motivation to do anything unless its on a grand scale , taking about a year of planning and 5-6 weeks of rehearsal.
Its not something that really should take up much of their time if the inclination is there.
If you could actually get past the personality problems with the two 'leaders' of the band, the other issue is that the pattern you've described is really the only way they know how to do it, after 30 years.
We're also part of the problem, insofar as there are so many hard core, and soft core fans that would want tickets, the high demand would justify to them, the big shows/big tour. As 'best case' for a new tour, is now 5 years from the last, demand would be pent up, and a fifty year legacy would be quite a draw; I think anyway.
At this point, I've given up on anything other than the mammoth tours...but I don't think there is even room for that now, going back to the personalities issue.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
ak1977 , Bandk4011 , Big Al , ChrisL , EddieByword , FeelslikeaGhost , GuessWho , hj3009 , hockenheim95 , jahisnotdead , jumpingjflash , keefriffhards , Mabru , MadMax , mazur , MeanDispo , MonkeyMan2000 , Nosnibourbos , rsvp2000 , spidey39 , spunky , The Sicilian , Topi , TW2019 , wiredallnight
Guests:
1542
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10